Ribbons wrote:So, in the wake of some of these negative SPECTRE reviews I have a larger question: is the spy genre broken?

A lot of people have expressed frustration that this is the second (arguably the third) Bond movie in a row where he goes rogue and is being hunted by both henchmen and his own superiors. But if you take a look around at other "spy" franchises, this is nothing new. Mission: Impossible has had some version of this plot in I think every installment, and rebelling against The Man is pretty much what the Bourne series is all about. At this point it's become a tiresome cliche, but is it so pervasive because we as a culture are fundamentally incapable of rooting for a Company Man?

I think it has to do with the fact that government shadowy spy organizations are not generally loved by the average citizen, so setting up a spy movie/hero character that just follows the orders of his superiors, which will always involve murdering someone, isn't necessarily a good premise for a movie?

Ribbons wrote:So, in the wake of some of these negative SPECTRE reviews I have a larger question: is the spy genre broken?

A lot of people have expressed frustration that this is the second (arguably the third) Bond movie in a row where he goes rogue and is being hunted by both henchmen and his own superiors. But if you take a look around at other "spy" franchises, this is nothing new. Mission: Impossible has had some version of this plot in I think every installment, and rebelling against The Man is pretty much what the Bourne series is all about. At this point it's become a tiresome cliche, but is it so pervasive because we as a culture are fundamentally incapable of rooting for a Company Man?

i think it's just as much a cliche as the cop movie where the cop goes rogue to get revenge/find the "real killers"/rescue his kidnapped daughter/save the Nakatomi building/etc., or the military film where soldiers go rogue to find their missing brothers/take out the terrorist leader/rescue the POWs/secure the nuke/capture the double-crossing general who set them up/etc. in other words, having the main character "go rogue" is a common (some would say lazy) way to generate conflict easily in almost any genre. spy films probably lend themselves more readily and believably to that cliche.

Dunno why Bond went Rogue in the first place. It was under M's wishes before she died and I'm sure the Mallory would have approved of this idea and her judgement and let Bond go out there anyway. Which would have stopped the ripple effect of Bond being grounded for this and having to go off disobeying orders again.

When we first see Oberhauser from behind, and he's got the same sunglasses as James and looks like his double, I thought, oh, kind of like Star Trek: Nemesis. It took me another half-hour to remember this was written by the same guy.

Other (spoilery) thoughts:

Whatever happened to the smart blood? Are the nanites in James forever?

Whatever happened to the implants in James's neck?

When Blofeld was getting arrested and Mr. White's daughter was walking across the bridge, I was waiting for a sniper shot to take her down a la On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Then when they're in the car I thought for sure, but that was the end. Since she lived, I'll wager she's offed in the opening sequence of the next one.

I think Sam Mendes must think the opening credits of THE SHINING are the greatest moments in cinema history, because this film is non-stop lead-ins. Endless stark quiet tracking shots of cars driving along empty roads, trains going through deserts, boats going across calm ponds, Bond slowly walking up to building entrances, Bond walking slowly through lobbies etc. All of this might be called build up if it actually served to build anything up, or even if there was anything worth building up to in the movie that happened after all this monotony. But no. Bond and Lea Seydoux take a long train ride into the desert. They get out in the middle of the desert. They wait. A car slowly pulls up. They get in. They ride in the slow car to Blofeld's HQ. They get out and slowly walk up the main path. A butler greets them. They check in to their suites at Blofeld's HQ. They unpack. They change clothes. They meet the butler again. They slowly walk up the main path. Then they get a tour of Blofeld's HQ, which includes a meteor in a museum display. They stop from their usual leisurely pace to admit that even they find the meteor boring. Then I guess we get what all this is leading up to, which is Blofeld taking them on a walk through his Call Centre of Doom.

Even more underwhelming than Blofeld's Call Centre of Doom is the really slapdash funhouse he sets up for Bond at the end. He prints out portraits of the people who have died over the course of the last three films and sticks them on the walls. He doesn't even have a colour printer. And for some reason Gemma Arterton doesn't rank, or maybe he just didn't have a good portrait of her on hand.

Nothing in the film is really thought out at all. And the glacial pace gives you a lot of time to realize this while you watch Bond drive somewhere or walk somewhere. The worst parts are anything to do with the film's secondary villain, a top ranking British bureaucrat who is a double agent for Spectre and tasked with launching Skynet. He wants to get the intelligence organizations of several countries all feeding one database. He's identified several countries, I think there were nine. For no reason I can tell, he requires 100% buy-in to go ahead with the program. If 8 of the 9 countries want to pool their intelligence, he can't just go ahead with those ones and let the other one join later. And even though he's a highly placed agent of Spectre, he doesn't seem to show up on the org chart in that octopus ring that contains all of Spectre's data. But it seems Spectre is pretty slow at updating their org chart since it includes guys Bond already killed in previous movies. And for some reason the sub-villain guy isn't invited to the big Spectre convention in Rome.

The sub-villain guy cancels the double 0 program because he says human assassins are outdated and drones are the future. You'd think that means we'd see a drone in this movie, but no. Also, it appears that all of the double 0 agents take their firing pretty graciously. We never see any of them. You'd think this could be the 'Butcher's Moon' of Bond films, in which Bond gets the whole pack together and they all fight against a direct threat to all of them. But you never see another double 0 agent in this film. Moneypenny is willing to work evenings and weekends to keep the organization afloat, but I guess 009 had to pick his kids up from daycare or something.

And yeah, there's the whole thing with the nanobytes in Bond's blood. Early in the film M says the bad guys could use those to track Bond, so you think that was an obvious set-up for that to happen, but they seemed to forget about it.

The final ten minutes of this movie are excruciating. Bond has now quit the job 3 times in 4 movies. What's with this guy? And they actually capture Blofeld and put him in jail instead of killing him? Don't they know that all modern villains plan to be caught so that they can taunt the hero face-to-face, then make a daring escape that was all planned out far in advance to further prove their logistical brilliance? Everybody does it. It's a thing. Yeesh.

If it's true, as colonel_lugz has said, that you get 2 crap Bond films for every good one, we're still owed a crap one for Skyfall. Fortunately the 3 Brosnan's were crap after GoldenEye, so we had one banked against Casino Royale. The last Craig outing, which will be a direct sequel to this where Blofeld breaks out and kills Bond's wife, will probably suck too. Then Martin Campbell will come back and do a good one with Idris.

Well, I definitely go softer on this series than colonel_lugz, because I think that more than 30% of the Bond movies are good. I actually like most of them and even get some enjoyment out of the worst ones.

If they do make another one with Craig, I feel like Bautista is coming back like Jaws. The part where they supposedly kill him in SPECTRE didn't feel like the last we'd see of him. Even in SPECTRE, I figured he'd be back at the end.

I think Craig's contracted for one more. Maybe it's an "option," as MasterWhedon schooled us on re: Aaron Eckhardt in The Dark Knight Rises, but I think it's an option the studio will exercise. This movie was set up in a lot of ways. Going through the motions to get Spectre and Blofeld back in place. I know they don't have to reboot that with a new actor, but I think the Craig films are especially self-contained, and it feels like the plan is to have Waltz and Craig go toe to toe again.

Then again, you could look at Bond driving off with Seydoux as the end of his storyline, and Blofeld behind bars as the end of his. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, and not seeing this movie for as soft and anti-climactic as it was.

I get the feeling that, even within any given individual movie, they're making it up as they go along. It felt like they kinda had an idea for a multi-film story at the start, but then when people reacted poorly to QUANTUM OF SOLACE they panicked and ditched it, but then realized they should retcon it all back together with SPECTRE.

They'll probably put out some offers to new actors they think would be good. If those guys all turn them down, they'll go back to Craig. The same thing happened with Roger Moore. He wanted to leave after FOR YOUR EYES ONLY, which would've been a good note to go out on, but they couldn't find a replacement so they just kept offering Moore more money and he took it.

There seem to be conflicting reports as to Craig's contract. So I don't know what's going on there.

Does anybody have any insights into Craig's contract? MasterWhedon? SuperPooper?

It does seem to be a refrain that he has one more to do. Some speculated that when he was talking about how he hates playing Bond on the Spectre tour, it was to try to get more money for the next one.

No matter what they should find somebody who likes Bond next time. And the Broccoli's should give up more control. They should let lots of different directors have a crack at it, like Quentin wanted to. There can be some limitations, but open it up.

RaulMonkey wrote:No matter what they should find somebody who likes Bond next time.

I don't think Sam Mendes lacks affection for the series. I think with SPECTRE, Mendes really was trying to make a movie that fits with everybody's idea of what a classic Bond film is. And I would say in that respect, he succeeded. It just didn't come together well because of bad anti-climactic pacing, illogical pointless plotting, boring character interactions, and too many elements that get introduced and go nowhere.

RaulMonkey wrote:They should let lots of different directors have a crack at it, like Quentin wanted to. There can be some limitations, but open it up.

It still makes me sad Tarantino never got his crack at this series. He would be my #1 choice of guys I would want to do a Bond film. The character interactions are a huge part of what makes Bond films great, and Tarantino gets how to make those scenes entertaining.

I thought it might be cool to do the next five Bond films as one-offs with a different director and a different actor as Bond in each one. It'll never happen, but I thought it would be a neat way to let different filmmakers and actors bring a variety of takes to the series without struggling for continuity with the surrounding installments.

RaulMonkey wrote:No matter what they should find somebody who likes Bond next time.

I don't think Sam Mendes lacks affection for the series. I think with SPECTRE, Mendes really was trying to make a movie that fits with everybody's idea of what a classic Bond film is. And I would say in that respect, he succeeded. It just didn't come together well because of bad anti-climactic pacing, illogical pointless plotting, boring character interactions, and too many elements that get introduced and go nowhere.

RaulMonkey wrote:They should let lots of different directors have a crack at it, like Quentin wanted to. There can be some limitations, but open it up.

It still makes me sad Tarantino never got his crack at this series. He would be my #1 choice of guys I would want to do a Bond film. The character interactions are a huge part of what makes Bond films great, and Tarantino gets how to make those scenes entertaining.

I thought it might be cool to do the next five Bond films as one-offs with a different director and a different actor as Bond in each one. It'll never happen, but I thought it would be a neat way to let different filmmakers and actors bring a variety of takes to the series without struggling for continuity with the surrounding installments.

Yeah, there's so little continuity anyway. It overall reminds me of the Law & Order series, where occasionally there's a flash of a personal detail, or a reference to something that happened before, but until recently it's been largely procedural.

They should also get an actor who likes Bond next time. There've gotta be a couple of people actually lobbying for the chance. Don't foist it upon someone.

I don't really think you guys know what you're talking about with Craig not wanting to play Bond again or to not want/like playing him at all.

Craig expresses how fed up he is with playing Bond after each film in interviews anyway. How would you feel if you devoted a year to a film 24/7 getting physically fucked every day and had to go away from your family? Craig after Quantum said something like "The last thing I want to do is think/talk about doing another Bond". Of course he wants to rather slash his wrists right now than do another Bond. But that's just his current mindset. I'm sure in time he'll be up for it. (I think he referred to his own comment as only being his temporary thoughts)

With other actors in the part they had problems with them, and those actors expressed their dislike for playing the role, heck Sean Connery did, and had fall outs with the producers a lot. Moore wanted to quite after Moonraker.

Get an actor who wants/likes to play this role? Fuck man, they ALL did! And so did Craig! Why would he accept it otherwise or keep doing it? It's just that after the initial desire to play this part they do get tired of it. But they still do it as theirs other reasons to do a job apart from completely liking it. If they truly didn't like it they would quit.

Get 1 actor to play 1 film, and continue doing this? What a stupid idea.

I think Refn would make a good choice, but the Broccoli's would sit on him and maybe suppress his edge and violence, which has been badly lacking from Craig's films since Mendes stepped in.

I think a 5th Bond, yes with Craig sure to be returning, would be best to go out with a bang and go back to the more gritty dangerous concept of the first 2 Craig films, make it more darker, more pain, challenges, drama and tragedy, with a more controversial not giving a fuck direction the likes of Refn would do, bring it back to the promise of what Casino Royale brought to what the world of Bond is. And yes, give Daniel Craig more bloody acting to do too, make his character more up against it, give him situations that look like he'll never win, make him sweat, bleed and heck, bloody shout and be forced into more desperation with, mentally and physically.

Then again it'd be cool to see some different dudes play him, maybe even have a few different actors play him in the same movie like the first Casino Royal. Hell maybe throw Emily Blunt in there half way through a steamy Bellucci scene. Then like they shoukd do with the next Star Trek Cpt on the new series. you go full shemale.

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:Then again it'd be cool to see some different dudes play him, maybe even have a few different actors play him in the same movie like the first Casino Royal. Hell maybe throw Emily Blunt in there half way through a steamy Bellucci scene. Then like they shoukd do with the next Star Trek Cpt on the new series. you go full shemale.

Cpt Kirks 2pay wrote:I think a 5th Bond, yes with Craig sure to be returning, would be best to go out with a bang and go back to the more gritty dangerous concept of the first 2 Craig films, make it more darker, more pain, challenges, drama and tragedy, with a more controversial not giving a fuck direction the likes of Refn would do, bring it back to the promise of what Casino Royale brought to what the world of Bond is. And yes, give Daniel Craig more bloody acting to do too, make his character more up against it, give him situations that look like he'll never win, make him sweat, bleed and heck, bloody shout and be forced into more desperation with, mentally and physically.

I agree with this, but I doubt that's what will happen. Mendes has done his darnedest to drag Bond kicking and screaming back into its campy heyday. The stunts all have to be ridiculously implausible, he has to straighten his tie and wink and quip at inopportune moments, he has to prefer his martinis shaken not stirred, he has to have invisible cars and flirt with his secretary, etc. etc. It just feels to me like the series is trending in the opposite direction now.

Let's settle this about WHO makes a Bond film worthy to watch. It's not 1 trick pony Martin Campbell, Idris Elba going for the PC for PC's sake, farking David Fincher 'cos I can't think of anyone else - it's ME!!!

Yup, that's right, ME!!! You wanna know why Spectre was shit and not the best Bond film Evah?!!?

... 'Cos my farking scene was CUT, that's why...!!!!

I appeared in the trailer, over Bond's shoulder in the white, over Bond's shoulder in the white!! But got cut from the film. I can't tell you how many one date wonders I would have taken to see this film with me would have ended up disappointed and reject me for a Bondjob/Blofeldjob at the front of the cinema 'cos of this.

Let's settle this about WHO makes a Bond film worthy to watch. It's not 1 trick pony Martin Campbell, Idris Elba going for the PC for PC's sake, farking David Fincher 'cos I can't think of anyone else - it's ME!!!

Yup, that's right, ME!!! You wanna know why Spectre was shit and not the best Bond film Evah?!!?

... 'Cos my farking scene was CUT, that's why...!!!!

I appeared in the trailer, over Bond's shoulder in the white, over Bond's shoulder in the white!! But got cut from the film. I can't tell you how many one date wonders I would have taken to see this film with me would have ended up disappointed and reject me for a Bondjob/Blofeldjob at the front of the cinema 'cos of this.

Let's settle this about WHO makes a Bond film worthy to watch. It's not 1 trick pony Martin Campbell, Idris Elba going for the PC for PC's sake, farking David Fincher 'cos I can't think of anyone else - it's ME!!!

Yup, that's right, ME!!! You wanna know why Spectre was shit and not the best Bond film Evah?!!?

... 'Cos my farking scene was CUT, that's why...!!!!

I appeared in the trailer, over Bond's shoulder in the white, over Bond's shoulder in the white!! But got cut from the film. I can't tell you how many one date wonders I would have taken to see this film with me would have ended up disappointed and reject me for a Bondjob/Blofeldjob at the front of the cinema 'cos of this.

RaulMonkey wrote:They should let lots of different directors have a crack at it, like Quentin wanted to. There can be some limitations, but open it up.

It still makes me sad Tarantino never got his crack at this series. He would be my #1 choice of guys I would want to do a Bond film. The character interactions are a huge part of what makes Bond films great, and Tarantino gets how to make those scenes entertaining.

I thought it might be cool to do the next five Bond films as one-offs with a different director and a different actor as Bond in each one. It'll never happen, but I thought it would be a neat way to let different filmmakers and actors bring a variety of takes to the series without struggling for continuity with the surrounding installments.

Speaking of which, isn't Christopher Nolan keen on doing a Bond film? Since Mendes blended populism with auteurism and it worked out well (financially anyway), maybe the Broccolis will let Nolan take a whack at the franchise. He could even direct his buddy Tom Hardy.

I think it's the other way around. The Broccolis have been quite public in courting Nolan, saying he's at the top of their list of filmmakers they'd love to work with. I haven't heard anything from Nolan on the matter. Nolan certainly has been influenced by the Bond films and sampled OHMSS pretty blatantly in INCEPTION. I tend to think Nolan will keep doing his original films as long he can. He'll take another franchise job when he needs a surefire financial success to give him a boost.

Personally, although I've enjoyed several of Nolan's films, I would not want to see Nolan do a Bond film. I find Nolan's style too sterile and heavyhanded for what I want from a Bond film. The only good thing I can see coming out of it would be getting Marion Cotillard in a Bond film.

Spandau Belly wrote:I think it's the other way around. The Broccolis have been quite public in courting Nolan, saying he's at the top of their list of filmmakers they'd love to work with. I haven't heard anything from Nolan on the matter. Nolan certainly has been influenced by the Bond films and sampled OHMSS pretty blatantly in INCEPTION. I tend to think Nolan will keep doing his original films as long he can. He'll take another franchise job when he needs a surefire financial success to give him a boost.

Personally, although I've enjoyed several of Nolan's films, I would not want to see Nolan do a Bond film. I find Nolan's style too sterile and heavyhanded for what I want from a Bond film. The only good thing I can see coming out of it would be getting Marion Cotillard in a Bond film.

i want to see Nolan do a Bond film, just to hear the deep gravelly voice Bond uses when he's on assignment.

Spandau Belly wrote:Nothing in the film is really thought out at all. And the glacial pace gives you a lot of time to realize this while you watch Bond drive somewhere or walk somewhere. The worst parts are anything to do with the film's secondary villain, a top ranking British bureaucrat who is a double agent for Spectre and tasked with launching Skynet. He wants to get the intelligence organizations of several countries all feeding one database. He's identified several countries, I think there were nine. For no reason I can tell, he requires 100% buy-in to go ahead with the program. If 8 of the 9 countries want to pool their intelligence, he can't just go ahead with those ones and let the other one join later. And even though he's a highly placed agent of Spectre, he doesn't seem to show up on the org chart in that octopus ring that contains all of Spectre's data. But it seems Spectre is pretty slow at updating their org chart since it includes guys Bond already killed in previous movies. And for some reason the sub-villain guy isn't invited to the big Spectre convention in Rome.

The specifics of the plan and what the end-goal ultimately was are definitely not well explained at best and don't make sense. But at the same time, because I saw this movie one or two days after the events in Paris, I was thinking about the idea of coordinating an attack that leads countries to play right into your hands. You see the anti-Muslim sentiment and hostility towards refugees that's taking place even over here, an ocean away from Paris and the Middle East, and I can't help but think that all the ways that we're reacting right now are exactly how ISIS wanted us to react. So even though the plot mechanics surrounding this part of the movie are dodgy, I was probably more receptive to it than you were.

Spandau Belly wrote:I think it's the other way around. The Broccolis have been quite public in courting Nolan, saying he's at the top of their list of filmmakers they'd love to work with. I haven't heard anything from Nolan on the matter. Nolan certainly has been influenced by the Bond films and sampled OHMSS pretty blatantly in INCEPTION. I tend to think Nolan will keep doing his original films as long he can. He'll take another franchise job when he needs a surefire financial success to give him a boost.

Personally, although I've enjoyed several of Nolan's films, I would not want to see Nolan do a Bond film. I find Nolan's style too sterile and heavyhanded for what I want from a Bond film. The only good thing I can see coming out of it would be getting Marion Cotillard in a Bond film.

i want to see Nolan do a Bond film, just to hear the deep gravelly voice Bond uses when he's on assignment.

An angsty, brooding Bond would be just what the franchise needs!

"Alright Shaggy - you and Scooby head over that way. The girls and I will go this way."

They should have used Radiohead's version. That was the worst Bond theme opener ever. An overkill of Octopus in every scene PLUS Sam Smith singing rather shrilly.

I watched this last night. Can't say that I was too impressed with the film. As others have mentioned, the villains are weak and the storyline meanders. I think Waltz is a fantastic actor but a Bond villain he is not. Cuckoo! I guess I compare every Bond villian to Le Chiffre and no one seems to measure up.

I was a bit disappointed with the brief appearance of Monica Bellucci. I was under the impression her role was going to be a significant one and it is not. She has a few minutes of screen time where she looks good and has sex with Bond.

As far as the action goes, it could have been better. The opening scene with the Day of the Dead celebration in Mexico could have really been great. Instead, a building blows up and a helicopter goes nuts for a few minutes.

We need more gadgets, better action, a good villain (see Le Chiffre), a sexier Bond and new direction.

Al Shut wrote:Do you mean a different director or a different way the series should be heading?

Both. I miss the Bonds of the past, where there was the right dose of campiness, cars turned into submarines and villains had metal teeth.

Baxter, if they ever get One Direction to do the Bond theme, just shoot me now.

A lot of speculation in this thread for who the next Bond will be? I think Ed Skrein would be a great Bond. He's British, he's cool, he's sexy and he can pull it off - just look at the Transporter Refueled trailer. Yes, he is a bit of an unknown but maybe that's a good thing. Some of you may remember him from Game of Thrones. He was the first Daario (which I preferred).

Al Shut wrote:Do you mean a different director or a different way the series should be heading?

Both. I miss the Bonds of the past, where there was the right dose of campiness, cars turned into submarines and villains had metal teeth.

Although I grew up in the 80's, I now loathe the Roger Moore films. Too much camp. That doesn't mean there can't be humor. It just feels like now, when there's a joke, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to laugh. Kind of laughing at a funeral.

The action was seriously lacking in this one, for sure. In fact, I think everything was lacking (including both theme songs!).Worst opening credits in a long time, too.

I love Craig as Bond, and I like how linked they made his films.... it's just that the final product fell flat.

Achievement Unlocked: TOTAL DOMINATION (Win a Werewolf Game without losing a single player on your team)

hey, some of my best friends are English. i've got English people who work for me and they all love me. i'm just saying, we gotta stop letting them come willy-nilly into our country. we need a ban on English people travelling to the US until Congress figures out what's going on with them. i mean, c'mon, we've already been in two wars. how many more Americans have to die at the hands of the Redcoats before our government wakes up and does something about it?

Al Shut wrote:Do you mean a different director or a different way the series should be heading?

Both. I miss the Bonds of the past, where there was the right dose of campiness, cars turned into submarines and villains had metal teeth.

Although I grew up in the 80's, I now loathe the Roger Moore films. Too much camp. That doesn't mean there can't be humor. It just feels like now, when there's a joke, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to laugh. Kind of laughing at a funeral.

The action was seriously lacking in this one, for sure. In fact, I think everything was lacking (including both theme songs!).Worst opening credits in a long time, too.

I love Craig as Bond, and I like how linked they made his films.... it's just that the final product fell flat.

It's too bad this is his last hurrah as James Bond. I read somewhere that Craig wanted Skyfall to be his last Bond film. I guess he saw it coming too.